Amazon does not have a rating for zero-stars. If they did, this book would get the zero-star award. Where to start? Well--I guess from my visceral reaction. I, unlike so many reviewers, am a soldier. I have completed three tours in Iraq. I was a member of the National Guard deployed in 2003 during the same time frame that Mr. Crawford had his deployment. My role was that of a combat physician. I know personally, many of the issues and types of war-scenes that "The Last True Story" tries to depict. I have been to some of the same places, streets and facilties in Baghdad. I have witnessed, firsthand, and treated firsthand, the types of wounds that are depicted in the book. That said, I have a very different perspective on what I saw in Iraq during the deployment in 2003 and subsequent deployments. I also have a radically different take on the literary value of this work.
The issue of truth is in the title of the book, so let me address it here. Is this a "truthful" account of the events in Iraq. I don't doubt that Mr Crawford experienced the events he describes in the book. Many of the events he describes are certainly within the realm of things which occrued there. I do however take issue with his reportage and accuracy with which he describes the events in his book. I think chapter five, "The Bank", points out several inconsistancies which are troubling in terms of accuracy. In the latter part of the chapter, Crawford writes about an incident in which "Doc" Ballou is shot by a "guy" who, according to doc's friend, Harris, "walks right up to us, pulls out a pistol, and shoots us." From this point blank range, doc sustains an injury to the neck, and according to Crawford, "doc" is down at the doorway of the bank, "legs twitching in protest, trying to get up and run." Doc, "had a stranglehold on his own neck, and spurts of blood poured from between his fingers." We are told there is an "Almost fourty-five minute" delay before a rescue team left some compound as a "rescue team" to come to the aide of this wounded soldier.
Flash forward in time to the point where Crawford actually arrives on this scene to tell us how "Doc Ballou's near-lifeless body" was loaded into an Iraqi ambulance, while one of the soldiers tended to his "pulsating neck."
O.K., we have point blank neck wound from a pistol, legs twitching, neck spurting blood for nearly 45 minutes and a "doc" whose direct hit to the throat, continued to bleed and "spurt out with each struggle of his heart", and whose "face was pale as death." Yet after all this, he somehow was fortunate enough to have a bullet whose course missed the carotid artery (blood squirting and spurting), missed the spine (legs twitching, unable to get up and run), missed the larynx (mouth opening and closing but no words coming out), a face pale with death (near exsanguination and in volume shock from blood loss), a near-lifeless body that somehow manages to have a pulsating neck (near-death and pulsating neck are incongruent), and a 45 minute delay which does not affect the outcome for this unfortunate soldier. Oh, and by the way, the bullet somehow makes a 90 degree turn in the soldier's neck without hitting any major neck anatomy (arteries, spine, larynx, trachea, etc) and then ends up in the right lung of the patient.
Did this incident happen? Well, taking Crawford at face value and not insisting that this incident is a complete fabrication; yes it probably did happen. What is troubling however, is Crawford's descriptive detail. It is so incongruous in its detail that it leads me to the impression that it is not real. Any critical reader of this account needs to sit back and wonder what Crawford is describing. In the initial part of incident, he is not even there. So what he is reporting of the attack, must be second hand information. Further, we are told that "doc's" partner, Harris, is also shot point blank in the chest so that a "nickle-sized hole in the breast" of his T-shirt with "a large bloodstain down the front" is caused by a bullet that went through a vest without armor plates and that this "just broke the skin" and left Harris with a "large purplish-black bruise across the right side of his chest." Earlier, we are told that "a small hole was in the center of the flak vest" of Harris and that "Blood was beginning to show darkely on the camoflague pattern." That would indicate a rapidly bleeding wound in any soldier.
WOW, Harris is one lucky soldier. Could it have happened? I think it is far fetched. Consider the ballistic force of a point blank gunshot to the chest. I took care of soldiers who had been shot in the chest with the body armor in place. Yes, it leaves a large bruise. The skin may or may not be broken. But a soldier who gets hit in the chest at point blank range, to the point of leaving a "nickle-sized hole" in the T-shirt is a soldier who would have sustained a penetrating injury to the chest---else why the hole in the T-shirt. I think this is fabrication. It certainly is not accurate as to any combat injuries I treated and have studied in my twenty years as an ER doctor.
Crawford takes time to critique the "rescue team", part of a Quick Reaction Force or QRF for taking nearly 45 minutes to leave the "compound." He further states that it took only "a moment" to get back to the compound from the bank where the incident happened. A moment--we are not told how long that is exactly, but the connotation suggests it is really fast. So fast that maybe it is unrealistic, especially since the QRF took nearly 45 minutes to leave the compound. Any QRF that I have been fortuante unough to be associalted was positioned and ready to launch within 5 minutes, hence the nomenclature--Quick reaction force. The stories in chapter 5 are just to inconguous in their detail to have happened in the way they are described. They may have happened, but there are just too many inconsistancies in the reportage to give them any substantial credibility.
The issue I have with the book, beyond the issue of credibility, is one of crass disregard for sentence structure, word choice and coherence in the story line. I wrote in the flap of the book cover that this was the absolute worst piece of literature that I had ever read. I then wrote, scratch that sentence--this is not literature. It is a reminder of what literature is not. How could a piece work so poorly constructed be published. Now that is a real mystery. Another reviewer commented that this book was a contribution to the genre. I don't know which genre that would be, but it is certainly not the genre of war literature.
I suspect the book is a reflection of a need by the author to say somthing about his experiences in Iraq. I agree with some of his observations about equipment and the conflicts between the "regular" Army and the "reserve" components. I only wish he would have spent more time formulating exactly what it was he was trying to say. As it reads, it is so poorly written that I think it risks coming off as poorly contructed fiction, instead of telling the "true story" of what happened in Iraq.
Loading your book clubs
There was a problem loading your book clubs. Please try again.
Not in a club? Learn more
Join or create book clubs
Choose books together
Track your books
Bring your club to Amazon Book Clubs, start a new book club and invite your friends to join, or find a club that’s right for you for free.
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required. Learn more
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
| Price | New from | Used from |
|
Audible Audiobook, Unabridged
"Please retry" |
$0.00
| $7.95 with discounted Audible membership | |
|
Preloaded Digital Audio Player, Unabridged
"Please retry" | $46.58 | $16.95 |
Book recommendations, author interviews, editors' picks, and more. Read it now.
What do customers buy after viewing this item?
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
About the author
Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on October 17, 2009
Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on February 16, 2023
Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on November 13, 2005
Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on February 12, 2006
Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on April 19, 2020
Top reviews from other countries
Nikos
Moving well written showing of illegal travesty of American illegal amoral occupation
Reviewed in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 on January 9, 2013
